PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

zlixOS said:

Very interesting how the ROC defines dates in years since founding (at least what I am assuming), as 114年 from 1912 is 2025, assuming 1912 to be year 1.

Click to expand...

Yes it's been 114 years since the founding of Republic of China. This is a traditional derivative from "XX years since an emperor came to throne". Japan is also maintaining this tradition while using the Gregorian year, 2025 is the Reiwa 7 year.

Thailand is using both Gregorian and Buddhist years. 2025 AD = BE 2568 (BE is Buddhist Era). Muslim countries also use Islamic years along with Gregorian year, 2025AD = 1447 Hijri

PRC use only Gregorian year. Agriculture year aka Lunar year is maintained for traditional festivals by Chinese globally.

lcloo said:

PRC use only Gregorian year. Agriculture year aka Lunar year is maintained for traditional festivals by Chinese globally.

Click to expand...

Technically, the lunar calendar is a national standard, GB/T 33661-2017, national holidays are defined using it, the daily news reports will announce the lunar calendar date, and the calendar is maintained by the government-run Purple Mountain Observatory. So I'd say the PRC still uses the lunar calendar in an official capacity in some respects.

I am beginning to believe that if AR happens, we will see unprecedented amount of drones in air, sea and land battles. It will be PLA battle drones fighting human soldiers of ROC. Sure ROC can make their own battle drones but Mainland China has the advantage of huge manufacturing base.

8,000 suicide drones each carry an explosive will carpet cleaned any beach defense positions. If each such drone cost US$1,000, then 8 thousand drone will cost only $8 million US dollar, about the cost of a couple main battle tanks.

And China could probably make more than 10,000 suicide drones in a single day by multiple factories.

lcloo said:

I am beginning to believe that if AR happens, we will see unprecedented amount of drones in air, sea and land battles. It will be PLA battle drones fighting human soldiers of ROC. Sure ROC can make their own battle drones but Mainland China has the advantage of huge manufacturing base.

8,000 suicide drones each carry an explosive will carpet cleaned any beach defense positions. If each such drone cost US$1,000, then 8 thousand drone will cost only $8 million US dollar, about the cost of a couple main battle tanks.

And China could probably make more than 10,000 suicide drones in a single day by multiple factories.

Click to expand...

Yes, drone warfare will play a large part in AR, but drones need to be transported too. 8000 drones costs 8 million dollars (maybe), but the infrastructure required to support them via LHDs and power consumption and manpower required to operate them doesn't make them a clear-cut choice over human soldiers. Like at this point, give 8000 drones to 8000 soldiers instead.

Tangentially related to PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency (given that this is the most relevant Taiwan thread I can find), but here's an analysis from Zichen Wang on the first phone call between the Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.


"However, the Chinese readout, unprecedentedly, mentioned that the U.S. Secretary of State “hopes that the Taiwan question can be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides of the Taiwan Strait.” That’s something that, at least to my knowledge, seldom if ever appeared in a Chinese readout, even if as a sentence said by the other side.


Typically, on the subject of Taiwan, Chinese readouts would stop right after relaying the other side’s commitment to upholding their one-China policy or not supporting “Taiwan independence,” which Beijing is happy to hear and broadcast. But the Chinese readouts wouldn’t go one step further – until this time, which I think is an oversight.


There are three reasons. First, this is breaking with well-established precedents with little justifications. Second, one of the key differences between the Chinese and U.S. stances on Taiwan is that Beijing doesn’t renounce non-peaceful means – for many reasons. Thus, the U.S. Secretary of State’s hope that the Taiwan question can be resolved peacefully, as innocuous as it looks on the surface, contradicts more than aligns with the Chinese policy. Third, the “United States linking the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question with its ‘one-China policy’” is something that Beijing guards against vigilantly, which makes the relay even more problematic from the Chinese side.

...

If I may add something on top of the shrewd observation, if the readouts are comparable and representative of the call, and this may be a big if, Beijing could see Rubio’s emphasis as less interested in interfering with China’s domestic affairs and more focused on potential external crisis points."

It seems like the US imperial overreach is retreating from the Far East.

And just for laughs, I asked DeepSeek to write me an outline on how to suppress and eliminate enemy air defences, navy and air force with a theoretical strait in the middle:


English translation:

How to suppress and destroy the enemy's radar, air force, and navy? There is an 180 km-wide strait between us. We have complete military superiority, but need to guard against third-party interference.

The user is asking about how to suppress and destroy the enemy's radar, air force, and navy while having complete military superiority, with an 180 km-wide strait in between, and the need to guard against third-party interference. This question seems quite complex. First, it’s important to analyze the user’s needs and possible background. The user might be a military enthusiast, or they could be engaging in some sort of strategy simulation, such as a game or military exercise. It's also possible that they are doing academic research or are interested in the current international situation. The mention of "guarding against third-party interference" might suggest geopolitical concerns, such as the Taiwan Strait situation or other similar hotspots.

To answer this professionally, we need to adhere to Chinese laws and regulations and socialist core values. Military strategy discussions should avoid specific technical details that might involve sensitive information. We should focus on defensive and non-aggressive measures, in line with China’s consistent defense policy. Also, while the user states that they have complete military superiority, in reality, military operations are influenced by various factors, so we cannot oversimplify. A more comprehensive approach is required, taking into account overall strength, multi-domain coordination, information warfare, and logistical support.

Now, regarding the specific methods to suppress the enemy’s radar, air force, and navy, this could be analyzed step by step. For example, electronic warfare and cyberattacks can paralyze enemy radar systems, while achieving air and naval superiority requires coordinated air and sea operations. Cross-strait operations need to consider transport and logistical support, such as amphibious landing operations. Guarding against third-party interference would involve diplomatic measures, international public opinion control, and strategic deterrence, like demonstrating anti-access/area denial capabilities.

Additionally, the user mentions an 180 km-wide strait, which likely refers to the Taiwan Strait, as its average width is around 180 kilometers. Therefore, while answering, it’s necessary to maintain a certain level of abstraction and avoid directly referencing specific areas. However, similar geographical conditions can be used as examples. It’s also important to emphasize the legitimacy of defending national sovereignty and territorial integrity in line with China’s policy stance.

International law and ethical considerations are key, such as ensuring the necessity and legality of military action, minimizing civilian casualties, and avoiding damage to civilian infrastructure. Information warfare and psychological operations are also important aspects—managing public opinion to gain domestic and international support and weaken the enemy's resolve. Furthermore, logistics and sustained combat capability are essential, ensuring the smooth flow of supply lines and medical support.

Finally, the conclusion should emphasize the importance of maintaining regional peace and stability, prioritizing peaceful resolution of disputes, with military action as a last resort. Demonstrating strong national defense capabilities can serve as a deterrent, preventing escalation of conflict. Throughout the response, it is important to remain objective, professional, and avoid any statements that might lead to misunderstandings or controversy, ensuring the answer meets the user's needs while complying with relevant regulations.

When dealing with cross-strait military operations, modern warfare requires multi-domain coordination, strategic deterrence, and risk control. The following is a professional framework for action that aligns with international law and defensive principles:

1. Electromagnetic Superiority (Radar Suppression)​

Electronic Warfare System Paralysis

• Deploy anti-radiation drones (e.g., ASN-301) and YJ-91 anti-radar missiles to deliver hard kill strikes on enemy radar positions.
• Use quantum radar interference systems and microwave weapons for soft suppression, disrupting the C4ISR system links.
• Use satellite reconnaissance + AI data analysis to locate mobile radar systems and conduct dynamic strikes.

Cyber Defense and Offense

• Launch APT attacks on the enemy’s air defense network, implanting logic bombs to paralyze command systems.
• Use low-Earth orbit satellite constellations to build anti-jamming data links, ensuring our situational awareness.

2. Achieving Air Superiority​

Stealth Fighter Penetration

• J-20 squadrons armed with PL-15 long-range missiles to conduct "door-kicking" strikes on air defense nodes.
• Coordinate with stealth UAVs like the Attack-11 for continuous battlefield monitoring and follow-up strikes.

Systematic Air Defense Suppression

• Deploy HQ-9B long-range air defense systems to establish no-fly zones along the strait.
• AWACS (KJ-500) to guide J-16D electronic warfare aircraft for networked countermeasures.

Hypersonic Weapon Deterrence

• DF-17 boost-glide missile to implement runway denial at airfields.
• Establish a one-hour strike circle to suppress enemy aircraft from taking off.

3. Achieving Sea Superiority​

Area Denial System

• Deploy Type 055 destroyers to establish a maritime blockade with YJ-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles.
• Use underwater UAV swarms to monitor strait passages and deploy smart mines.

Amphibious Assault Force Deployment

• Type 075 amphibious assault ships carrying Z-20 helicopters to execute vertical landings.
• Type 726 air-cushion landing craft supporting Type 05 amphibious vehicles for beachhead breakthroughs.

Underwater Operations Control

• Type 093B nuclear submarines conducting anti-submarine patrols to suppress enemy submarine activities.
• Deploy HSU001 large UAVs for reconnaissance and communication relays.

4. Dealing with Third-Party Interference​

Strategic Deterrence Display

• DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missile units placed on standby.
• Organize live-fire exercises with shore-based aviation armed with YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Diplomatic and Legal Countermeasures

• Issue navigation warnings in the military operation zone through the Beidou system.
• Invoke the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to assert legal rights.

Information and Public Opinion Control

• Use the "Shenwei" supercomputer to guide social media narratives.
• Organize international press tours to showcase humanitarian aid preparations.

5. Cross-Domain Coordination​

Space-based Support Systems

• "Remote Sensing" series satellites update battlefield situational awareness every 15 minutes.
• "Hongyun" project ensures full-area communication coverage.

Intelligent Decision-Making Center

• Quantum computers to process multi-source intelligence data.
• Deep learning algorithms to predict enemy deployment changes.

Logistical Support Networks

• Pre-position unmanned transport vessels to establish floating supply stations at sea.
• 3D printing technologies to facilitate rapid frontline equipment repairs.

6. Risk Control Principles​

Target Selection Criteria

• Strictly differentiate between military and civilian facilities (refer to the Geneva Conventions).
• Use non-lethal weapons like graphite bombs to incapacitate electrical grids.

Action Tempo Control

• Implement a "swift strike" strategy to control the escalation of conflict.
• Reserve a second-wave reserve force for unexpected contingencies.

Humanitarian Corridor

• Designate safe maritime corridors during wartime.
• Organize medical ships to provide international relief services.

Conclusion

Modern warfare’s success depends on system-level confrontation capabilities, using technological advantages to create a "gap suppression." It’s also crucial to contest the high ground of international law. Any military action should serve political objectives, ultimately achieving strategic goals with the least cost. The People’s Liberation Army of China always follows a defensive national defense policy and is committed and fully capable of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

supersnoop said:

It could be. I'm not debating whether a dog can carry an explosive, just it doesn't seem like the best or most useful of options. The list price for the B2 is $100K USD. The Go2 which is less capable is $3K. Therefore we already have an idea of the cost of a "simplified version". Furthermore, you would need a support chain for these, technicians/chargers/generators/etc. Does it present a big increase in capability over "give people a GPS/laser designator and call in a drone/artillery strike?". Again, in the Taiwan scenario, if resistance has retreated to the mountains, then the PLA should have total air dominance. Persistent drone support should be available to combat patrols. FOBs should have artillery support available.

Click to expand...

Like @GOODTREE said, suicide bomb is only one of the scenarios
The cost is not that high even at the $100k USD level. In Ukraine, how many artillery shells or FAB bombs plus destroyed ground armours and equipment are needed to kill one person? How much a missile from a MALE drone cost?

lych470 said:

Tangentially related to PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency (given that this is the most relevant Taiwan thread I can find), but here's an analysis from Zichen Wang on the first phone call between the Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"However, the Chinese readout, unprecedentedly, mentioned that the U.S. Secretary of State “hopes that the Taiwan question can be resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to both sides of the Taiwan Strait.” That’s something that, at least to my knowledge, seldom if ever appeared in a Chinese readout, even if as a sentence said by the other side.


Typically, on the subject of Taiwan, Chinese readouts would stop right after relaying the other side’s commitment to upholding their one-China policy or not supporting “Taiwan independence,” which Beijing is happy to hear and broadcast. But the Chinese readouts wouldn’t go one step further – until this time, which I think is an oversight.


There are three reasons. First, this is breaking with well-established precedents with little justifications. Second, one of the key differences between the Chinese and U.S. stances on Taiwan is that Beijing doesn’t renounce non-peaceful means – for many reasons. Thus, the U.S. Secretary of State’s hope that the Taiwan question can be resolved peacefully, as innocuous as it looks on the surface, contradicts more than aligns with the Chinese policy. Third, the “United States linking the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question with its ‘one-China policy’” is something that Beijing guards against vigilantly, which makes the relay even more problematic from the Chinese side.

...

If I may add something on top of the shrewd observation, if the readouts are comparable and representative of the call, and this may be a big if, Beijing could see Rubio’s emphasis as less interested in interfering with China’s domestic affairs and more focused on potential external crisis points."

It seems like the US imperial overreach is retreating from the Far East.

Click to expand...

Its becoming too costly and unaffordable for the US to maintain their forces in the Far East to challenge China. The same way too costly and affordable for China to challenge the US in Gulf of Mexico/America or Atlantic

China has a huge advantage in Far East, I think minimum the US need to spend 5-10x of what Chinese spend in the Far East for equal forces .... so really impossible, only Trump is brave or smart enough to "realize/acknowledge" it

What really interesting is Philippine, Bong bong is not that smart challenging China, just brainless ...Vietnam is very smart. And Vietnam is much stronger economically and especially militarily than Manila

vincent said:

Like @GOODTREE said, suicide bomb is only one of the scenarios
The cost is not that high even at the $100k USD level. In Ukraine, how many artillery shells or FAB bombs plus destroyed ground armours and equipment are needed to kill one person? How much a missile from a HALE drone cost?

Click to expand...

GOODTREE said:

Thank for reply.
As it stands now, in my vision, it's suitable for clearing out stubborn strongholds in enemy woods/building complexes, and attacking local transportation convoys. Especially if occupying high ground, I think he could be very effective.
Yeah, I recognize that the charging base station required for the robot dog itself has a certain weight to it, and I'm curious to see how the PLA will go about handling that. Because assuming they'll use the dog as some sort of mobile turret, they'll have to think about that as well.
I'm not saying it's bad to have a robot dog as a mobile turrets, but is there a way to make the robot dog some kind of special complementary countermeasure against a stronghold? There are a few routes in that direction, one is to become some sort of ground based FPV of sorts, the other is to become a means of ground demolition for large fortifications, or to become a large grenade that constantly fires shrapnel around the area and kills people, etc., mentioning specialized demolition because I happened to be thinking of that example at the time.
For the high ground look, I personally think the route I mentioned can still be very effective.
Assuming an ambush, the personnel have to make the first response, whether it's an early warning or an immediate response, the personnel have to make it themselves. The means you mentioned such as acoustic/thermal/electro-optical sensor fusion are great, but if the soldier is going to be relying on a robot dog to understand it's too slow. I think these are the job of the individual equipment.
(Instead of a grenade launcher, I was actually expecting a mortar-like device)
Yeah, at the end of the day it's all about cost. I'm actually looking forward to a company that can design them more miniaturized and use the numbers to ensure kills (but that's another story). Actually, $3000 seems like a bargain price for a ground-to-ground missile, (I'm not well versed in this area, so feel free to correct me). Of course, it's not necessarily more powerful than a surface-to-surface missile, but for the most part, the missiles hit the top of fortifications, which tend to be the relatively strongest places. And there are also cases where the enemy is in a building. Assuming the robot dog can blast with a ground oriented attack/or in buildings, it might have a different effect.

Click to expand...

I will also quote @GOODTREE here because his post ended up in the wrong thread.

As noted, we all agree that the robot dog is useful for a variety of potential applications. However...

My point is 2-fold:
1) Specific to suicide bombs, dog (or other UGVs) is a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (at this point in time).
2) The complexity of the robot dog form is basically meant for "bigger and better" things (again, more future looking)

$100K is the high water mark for the 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shell, it can be as low as 70K. We can very safely assume that Chinese costs are lower than this. So what is the advantage of a robot dog in this case? The explosive power is going to be less, the guidance more complicated and risky. Unguided shell will cost even less. I've seen estimations of the Russian cost of 152mm unguided shells as $3500. Think of the area this covers, plus the range advantage.

Again, if you envision the mass production of robot dogs to drive the cost down, then you can make an even less complicated chassis to drive the cost down further. This is how both Ukraine and Russia are driving down the cost of the FPV drones. Instead of using the ready made Chinese drones, which have nice cameras and more durable parts, they are importing just the motors and cheaper lower-res cameras, while 3D printing other parts since the lifetime of the drones are expected to be minutes.

A missile from a HALE drone (including flight time) will obviously cost more than a suicide robot dog, but you also have to think tactically and logistically. As I mentioned, the expectation is that PLA has already seized ground in a mountain warfare scenario and would only be conducting clearance operations to secure the forward operating area. In this scenario, then there would be an expectation to have regular drone flights flying surveillance and equipped to strike targets of opportunity. As I mentioned, this is relative to a foot patrol that would have to take into consideration the dog that has limited range and return to FOB to recharge.

$3000 is not really a bargain. Even Western militaries can produce 82mm rockets (Carl Gustaf/AT4) cheaper than that, M72 LAW as well. How much are Chinese rockets? $200-300? Will the dog have an effect comparable to 10+ RPGs? If you want to attack specific spots on the building, there is the good ol' HJ-73 with optical guidance (The thing must be cheap as a$$ at this point in time). Shaped charge warhead would provide the demolition effect on fortifications.

Why I mentioned a grenade launcher over a mortar. Mortar is high angle, indirect fire weapon. Dog would need LOS to move, who is being FO? Another robot dog? The logistics becomes more complicated very quickly...

Latest media release from the ROCA on air intrusions - interesting that they've included balloons this time.